9 ms·

I've been listening to NPR for ~2 hours each day during my commutes for about 2 years. While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you belie

by vdnkh 11y ago

I've been listening to NPR for ~2 hours each day during my commutes for about 2 years. While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. They don't always up and say it, but their most common tactic is bringing on an 'expert', who pontificates about X while the host nods in agreement and says how smart they are. Listen closely when talking about Israel, Bernie/Hillary (I couldn't stomach the 15 minute puff piece on her yesterday), and digital privacy (David Greene got called a government shill by Darrel Issa on-air). I still listen to it but occasionally I have to put it on mute for a segment or two.

nerdponx 11y ago
I used to listen to WNYC constantly in high school (late '00s), and when I was delivering pizza between semesters in college. I feel like the fluff-to-content ratio has increasedto the point where it doesn't stand apart anymore, and it's just upper-middle-class background noise. Maybe my interests are just shifted, but I feel like there's a lot less news then there was five years ago. I feel like a lot of what they report on just isn't important or relevant. But I don't listen much anymore, so ironically I might be missing all of the good content and then ragging on NPR for not having good content.
- vdnkh 11y ago
  I should specify that I've been mainly listening to WNYC. I wouldn't exactly call their run-of-the-mill pieces "fluff", but they're becoming more of an attempt at radio clickbait. "Stay tuned to hear the tale of a disadvantaged minority!" I can only listen to so many of these before I shut it off and listen to the engine.
ericbrow 11y ago
When I can't stomach puff pieces on NPR, I usually blame it in my extreme liberal bias, but still take in the information. I still haven't yet heard ANY in-depth stories taking Trump or Cruise to task for their many false statements. At the same time, I've heard quite a few stories on how Sander's policies aren't viable, or the number of ways Secretary Clinton may have broken the law by demanding a Blackberry phone.
- coredog64 11y ago
  Perhaps nobody at NPR thinks that Cruz or Trump is in any danger of winning an election. Does Pauline Kael work at NPR?
Loughla 11y ago
I honestly didn't notice it until the presidential coverage this year. The specific word choices their hosts make when comparing candidates shows an extreme bias toward HRC. I don't know if maybe it's the on-air hosts' age? That, and anything at all relating to Israel. Even when (?) did the series on Palestinian perspectives, every Palestinian they spoke to 'understood' why Israel does what it does. My guess is there are other voices available. All that being said, I'll take a little bias to have access to stories that are actually researched and thought about, instead of the 30 second sound bite bull-shit pieces you get with the large nationals.
roldie 11y ago
I agree. I've been increasingly less impressed by their news coverage. You said it exactly right, there are puff pieces and lack of true experts representation on all sides of issues. However, for me, NPR's true value is it's shows. Diane Rehm and Terry Gross are great interviewers. Planet Money, Wait Wait, and of course all the local public radio shows like Freakonomics or Radiolab. Of course, this speaks a bit to the point of the article, though.
knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Their coverage of digital privacy for me is what made me realize NPR has its own biases, albeit more subtle than others. They consistently underrepresent the arguments against encroaching surveillance and give way too much airtime to the other side.
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Yes, you are correct. Former freelance writer here. I used to listen all of the time but finally got to where I couldn't stand it. Personally I find it intellectually abusive. Just guessing, what it looks like happens is that special groups pitch their press releases at NPR. NPR selects a few. Then they hook up with an "expert" -- most likely recommended by the same group or mentioned in the release. The reporting consists of re-reading the PR lead, then throwing some softballs at the expert, who then basically just gives an impassioned speech about whatever their pet topic is. Put in startup terms, there's a hell of a lot of submarine pieces for various political causes. If you like that kind of thing that's fine. I have no problem with various editorial styles. I think what was off-putting to me was the clash between the smugness and self-congratulatory nature of the style -- and the actual quality of the reporting I was receiving.
vectorpush 11y ago
> While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiased journalism. In fact, I don't think any news organization really claims to be unbiased except Fox News (and that isn't a judging statement, I say that based only on their "Fair and Balanced " tag line). I think NPR does make a fairly honest effort to avoid bias, and they're also receptive to accusations of bias; it's not uncommon to hear callers on various programs call in to say that they think the coverage of a certain topic is one sided or myopic, and in most cases the host allows the caller to speak their mind and let the criticism air for all to consider. I'd also add that NPR is not monolithic and the programming schedule of a given station is usually composed of sources from various studios around the country as well as local content for the region. Still, the bias cannot be denied, and I'd love to get a recommendation regarding a less biased or more reliable source of news programming (even if that means I'll have to stream a non-local station).
- mc32 11y ago
  During their pledge drives they do mention unbias and when donors call in to say that they donate because of unbias the hosts of the drives underscore that take. So, while officially they make no claims, in practice those claims are made, specially during their pledge drives.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  My local station goes on during the pledge drives about how NPR brings an unbiased, facts-based view of the world. the station definitely promotes it, and I believe the org thinks it, too. Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.
  - vectorpush 11y ago
    Fair enough. I haven't really heard that myself, but it does sound plausible based on some of the other over-the-top promotional lines I've heard during the pledge drives.
luckydude 11y ago
Like others, I didn't notice it until this presidential election cycle. Used to be a huge fan and financial supporter of NPR but that undid it for me. It's a bummer because there was, and still is, a lot of good content on there but I'm disappointed at their bias, I thought they were better than that. I haven't really found a solid replacement for them, it's a little here and a little there and more research on my part.
- dudifordMann 11y ago
  As with any reported data item, you should always diversify your sources. I have found that I get bias from NPR one direction and bias from my local AM talk-radio station the other way, it helps balance out my perspective.
cshenton 11y ago
Very much agree. They didn't cover Sanders to the point they had to issue an apology last year, but their coverage since has been paper thin. Their mailers are also practically campaigning for hillary https://i.imgur.com/UYeA1QQ.png https://i.imgur.com/UYeA1QQ.png. Recently they've not even been saying his name and just referring to hillary's competitor.
- dublinben 11y ago
  You're using their personalized news app, and you're complaining that they're trying to offer you a balanced perspective of the news?
mc32 11y ago
My take is that on ordinary things they try to be unbiased [try is key here], but on more political items, they take the mantel of the underrepresented of those they think are in the weaker position. This is specially true for the local affiliates who make it a point to bubble up less know issues [the plight of the Georgians whose single legacy community building is about to be razed to build condos, as a made up example]. But, their most insidious tactic, when they want to favor a cause or a person is one to frame things and couch things in deliberate terms and to have the unfavored person sound bad by prompting them to say ridiculous things and conversely prompting the person or cause they like for favorable things. It could be something like, so you say you are in favor of the North Korean regime, why is that? Why do you think a dominant patriarchal society is best for women there? They know their audience well and they codeswitch well and know the language of their audience and put in the proper language cues.

by vdnkh 11y ago

nerdponx 11y ago

I used to listen to WNYC constantly in high school (late '00s), and when I was delivering pizza between semesters in college. I feel like the fluff-to-content ratio has increasedto the point where it doesn't stand apart anymore, and it's just upper-middle-class background noise. Maybe my interests are just shifted, but I feel like there's a lot less news then there was five years ago. I feel like a lot of what they report on just isn't important or relevant. But I don't listen much anymore, so ironically I might be missing all of the good content and then ragging on NPR for not having good content.

vdnkh 11y ago
I should specify that I've been mainly listening to WNYC. I wouldn't exactly call their run-of-the-mill pieces "fluff", but they're becoming more of an attempt at radio clickbait. "Stay tuned to hear the tale of a disadvantaged minority!" I can only listen to so many of these before I shut it off and listen to the engine.

ericbrow 11y ago

When I can't stomach puff pieces on NPR, I usually blame it in my extreme liberal bias, but still take in the information. I still haven't yet heard ANY in-depth stories taking Trump or Cruise to task for their many false statements. At the same time, I've heard quite a few stories on how Sander's policies aren't viable, or the number of ways Secretary Clinton may have broken the law by demanding a Blackberry phone.

coredog64 11y ago
Perhaps nobody at NPR thinks that Cruz or Trump is in any danger of winning an election. Does Pauline Kael work at NPR?

Loughla 11y ago

I honestly didn't notice it until the presidential coverage this year. The specific word choices their hosts make when comparing candidates shows an extreme bias toward HRC. I don't know if maybe it's the on-air hosts' age? That, and anything at all relating to Israel. Even when (?) did the series on Palestinian perspectives, every Palestinian they spoke to 'understood' why Israel does what it does. My guess is there are other voices available. All that being said, I'll take a little bias to have access to stories that are actually researched and thought about, instead of the 30 second sound bite bull-shit pieces you get with the large nationals.

roldie 11y ago

I agree. I've been increasingly less impressed by their news coverage. You said it exactly right, there are puff pieces and lack of true experts representation on all sides of issues. However, for me, NPR's true value is it's shows. Diane Rehm and Terry Gross are great interviewers. Planet Money, Wait Wait, and of course all the local public radio shows like Freakonomics or Radiolab. Of course, this speaks a bit to the point of the article, though.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago

Their coverage of digital privacy for me is what made me realize NPR has its own biases, albeit more subtle than others. They consistently underrepresent the arguments against encroaching surveillance and give way too much airtime to the other side.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

Yes, you are correct. Former freelance writer here. I used to listen all of the time but finally got to where I couldn't stand it. Personally I find it intellectually abusive. Just guessing, what it looks like happens is that special groups pitch their press releases at NPR. NPR selects a few. Then they hook up with an "expert" -- most likely recommended by the same group or mentioned in the release. The reporting consists of re-reading the PR lead, then throwing some softballs at the expert, who then basically just gives an impassioned speech about whatever their pet topic is. Put in startup terms, there's a hell of a lot of submarine pieces for various political causes. If you like that kind of thing that's fine. I have no problem with various editorial styles. I think what was off-putting to me was the clash between the smugness and self-congratulatory nature of the style -- and the actual quality of the reporting I was receiving.

vectorpush 11y ago

> While I really like it, they're not unbiased like they may have you believe. I've never really heard NPR hosts/reporters claim it to be a bastion of unbiased journalism. In fact, I don't think any news organization really claims to be unbiased except Fox News (and that isn't a judging statement, I say that based only on their "Fair and Balanced " tag line). I think NPR does make a fairly honest effort to avoid bias, and they're also receptive to accusations of bias; it's not uncommon to hear callers on various programs call in to say that they think the coverage of a certain topic is one sided or myopic, and in most cases the host allows the caller to speak their mind and let the criticism air for all to consider. I'd also add that NPR is not monolithic and the programming schedule of a given station is usually composed of sources from various studios around the country as well as local content for the region. Still, the bias cannot be denied, and I'd love to get a recommendation regarding a less biased or more reliable source of news programming (even if that means I'll have to stream a non-local station).

mc32 11y ago
During their pledge drives they do mention unbias and when donors call in to say that they donate because of unbias the hosts of the drives underscore that take. So, while officially they make no claims, in practice those claims are made, specially during their pledge drives.
unethical_ban 11y ago
My local station goes on during the pledge drives about how NPR brings an unbiased, facts-based view of the world. the station definitely promotes it, and I believe the org thinks it, too. Certain programs are expected to have less bias than others, IMO. Panel shows like Diane Rehm, On Point and Fresh Air aren't necessarily meant to be completely unopinionated, while things like All Things Considered and Morning Edition (and perhaps Here and Now) are expected to bring a balanced perspective. They don't always succeed.
- vectorpush 11y ago
  Fair enough. I haven't really heard that myself, but it does sound plausible based on some of the other over-the-top promotional lines I've heard during the pledge drives.

luckydude 11y ago

Like others, I didn't notice it until this presidential election cycle. Used to be a huge fan and financial supporter of NPR but that undid it for me. It's a bummer because there was, and still is, a lot of good content on there but I'm disappointed at their bias, I thought they were better than that. I haven't really found a solid replacement for them, it's a little here and a little there and more research on my part.

dudifordMann 11y ago
As with any reported data item, you should always diversify your sources. I have found that I get bias from NPR one direction and bias from my local AM talk-radio station the other way, it helps balance out my perspective.

cshenton 11y ago

Very much agree. They didn't cover Sanders to the point they had to issue an apology last year, but their coverage since has been paper thin. Their mailers are also practically campaigning for hillary https://i.imgur.com/UYeA1QQ.png https://i.imgur.com/UYeA1QQ.png. Recently they've not even been saying his name and just referring to hillary's competitor.

dublinben 11y ago
You're using their personalized news app, and you're complaining that they're trying to offer you a balanced perspective of the news?

mc32 11y ago

My take is that on ordinary things they try to be unbiased [try is key here], but on more political items, they take the mantel of the underrepresented of those they think are in the weaker position. This is specially true for the local affiliates who make it a point to bubble up less know issues [the plight of the Georgians whose single legacy community building is about to be razed to build condos, as a made up example]. But, their most insidious tactic, when they want to favor a cause or a person is one to frame things and couch things in deliberate terms and to have the unfavored person sound bad by prompting them to say ridiculous things and conversely prompting the person or cause they like for favorable things. It could be something like, so you say you are in favor of the North Korean regime, why is that? Why do you think a dominant patriarchal society is best for women there? They know their audience well and they codeswitch well and know the language of their audience and put in the proper language cues.